About your Search

20130126
20130203
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
control of the american administration, that the u.s. is an imperial power. it opposes nato. a bit of a throwback group, a far-left marxist group. has some ties in europe and it has consistently attacked turkish authorities and sometimes business interests as well. and this time the u.s. embassy. according to tush irk authorities who have identified the bomber from remains, he was closer to 40 years old and had actually spent four years in a turkish prison for militant activity. but he was released for medical reasons. chaos of police and ambulances in one of ankara's most fortified districts, embassy row. on one stretcher, a well-known turkish journalist. she had come to have tea with the ambassador. she was at a visitor's gate in a security screening room when a suicide bomber came in, and reached for his waist. a guard yelled bomb and then it exploded. turkish media identified the bomber who killed himself and a turkish guard. >> right now, we're all dealing with our sadness at the loss of our fellow member of our embassy, we salute his bravery. >> reporter: the turkish governme
what to do with libya that would bring an unprecedented coalition between arab and nato countries, or whether it was just looking down the road at how we were doing diplomacy and introducing new tools into that mix, it was a very different time than ten, 20, 30, 40 years ago. i've kidded our mutual friend, henry kissinger, think how impossible it would have been for him to sneak off to china in the age of cell phones, twitter, facebook, everything else. it is a time that is testing us. i think we're passing the test, and quite comfortably, but the whole world scene is one now that is so quickly changing and challenging us that, you know, the traditional mode of doing diplomacy is not enough for what we face. >> what do you think didn't go well, what went wrong? >> well, benghazi went wrong. you know, that was a terrible example of trying to get the right balance of being in a threatening place or not being there, looking after american interests, which meant keeping an eye on the militants and extremists who we knew were reconstituting themselves in eastern libya, trying to track
on this technology and start to use it irresponsibly and hard for we the united states to go to nato or the u.n. or an international court or allies and say, hell us sanction this group for their illegal drone strikes when our program is completely unaccountable so getting the rules of engagement down codified on paper out in the open is really helpful for us to continue using drones. and i think whatever side of the issue you're on that should be an important part of this discussion. >> well, you know, and you mentioned there, s.e. anti-war left quiet on this and a phenomenon in politics republican in the white house and suddenly top to bottom party discipline on the right and democrat, on the left. there's been as you said consistent descent on the left. i write for a progressive publication publication, salon, a mark of distinction is we have been aggressively questioning this program. >> you're absolutely right. get some credit. >> and there are other publications, too. this is not -- >> you're right. where's code pink and moveon.org? >> the left did not roll over
and thinking about syria, think about the nato patriot missiles that are now there. he's going to be thinking about what the diplomatic and assistance side is of what is going on in mali which he will know quite well because the u.s. has been trying to support the emergence of a democratic government there for well over a decade. so those two crises are both great examples of where, as senator kerry, he traveled the world. he met with leaders. so the challenge that he has is to go from being someone who's able to drop in and then follow in an oversight role to being the person who really has to make the decisions and who has to say, you know, if mali is a priority, egypt is a priority, turkey is a priority, the conflict between china, japan, and south korea is a worry, the worry about a north korean nuclear test is a priority. we could go on and on. a secretary of state's job really is to keep all those balls in the air so, frankly, we're on tv talking about them as little as possible. >> right. you know, michael, the other thing that strikes me that now-secretary kerry is going to have to de
closely, closely with our lo longtime allies of nato and our friends and with allies and p t partners and friends in other regions of the world. at the same time we will continue to focus on challenges in the middle east and north africa where we have clear national interests. rather as recognition the united states has been and always will be a pacific power. in the asian pacific power it is increasingly vital to america's security and economic interests. that's why we must become even more engage d in the region ove the incoming years. doing all this and much more will require smart and strategic budget decisions. i have made it clear i share leon panetta's and our service chief's serious concerns about the impact sequestration would have on our armed forces. and as someone who has run businesses, i know that the uncertainty and turbulence of the current budget climate makes it much more difficult to manage the pentagon's resources and our national security. if confirmed, i'm committed to effectively and efficiently using every single taxpayer dollar the right way to maintain the st
of the nato intervention. as someone who's studied this region and i have to say i was reading your congressional testimony about north africa yesterday, it's incredibly prophetic, you've gone before congress many times, how much do you see the intervention in libya as a moment that pushed us toward these effects we're now seeing? >> i think it did push us entirely. the question for me was, was it intended, was it ignored? because i think where i differ with some people, we have to remember what happened before the intervention. we have to remember that they requested intervention. we have to remember that gadhafi was threatening to hand down all the people in the streets. we also have to remember that at that time the revolution had started in tunisia and it had jumped to egypt and so it seemed to me that if you have a choice between not allowing people to be mowed down in the streets, you do that. now the link i see with other places is once you intervene, probably the intervention is always easy, it is the aftermath. >> that's what we learned. >> and i think the question that i h
.s. troops and nato forces to afghanistan, but is perpetual war finally over? maybe. the president favors a smaller and leaner military, and one whose limited size could likely discourage international engagements and he seems eager to refocus the troops away from the battles in the mideast and towards the cooler and maybe even cold engagement of the global balance with asia, and it is not clear that the president can end a perpetual state of war, but now is a good time to ask what a more peaceful world would look like. at the table is retired colonel john jacob, and editor and writer katrina vanden houvel and cloeby angyal and also welcoming in our new panelist. >> there was supposed to be the peace dividend at the end of the cold war, but i have given up on thinking about the end of war. >> well, president obama would like to find a different engagement with the world, and that means nation building at home, but even while he spokes those glorious words, we are at perpetual war. the largest problem is that as you step back and ask why is global war the appropriate framework for combatti
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)